Quote:
Originally Posted by eyecu2
Which application of law do you think judge Merchon has been party to?
I think he's been VERY accommodating to the defense.
|
Well besides egregiously not allowing the defense to call its own expert witness, or his refusal to recuse himself when he has a clear conflict of interest with his daughter, there are a host of others. Corrupt Merchan is stacking the jury instructions on the federal election law issues that shouldn’t even be in state court. Merchan is compounding his prior errors in preventing Brad Smith from applying his election law expertise for the defense. That is just a starter
I will let the very well respected legal mind of Jonathon Turley explain it for you. Note the BOLDED portions
With the closing arguments set for Tuesday in the trial of former president Donald Trump, defense counsel are in a rather curious position.
There is still debate among legal experts as to the specific crime that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is alleging.
Trump’s lawyers are defending a former president who is charged under a state misdemeanor which died years ago under the statute of limitations. It was then zapped back into life in the form of roughly three dozen felonies by claiming that bookkeeping violations — allegedly hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a supposed affair with Trump — were committed to hide another crime.
But what is that second crime?
Even liberal legal analysts admitted that they could not figure out what was being alleged in Bragg’s indictment. Now, after weeks of trial, the situation has changed little.
Originally, Bragg referenced four possible crimes, though is now claiming three: a tax violation or either a state or federal campaign financing violation. The last crime is particularly controversial because
Bragg has no authority to enforce federal law and the Justice Department declined any criminal charge. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) did not even find grounds for a civil fine.
Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.
The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation.
This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime. The jury will be reminded that the burden is on the government, not the defense.
However, the presumption of innocence is often hard to discern in criminal cases. Most jurors believe that clients are sitting behind the defense table for a reason. That is why many prosecution offices have conviction rates in the 80%-90% range.
That presumption is even more difficult to discern when the defendant is named Trump and the jury sits in Manhattan.
----
Clearly the corrupt Merchan is wrong as the Supreme Court has previously ruled the jury must be unanimous on every element (it can’t be 4 believe one predicate and 8 believe another)
... 
